Steven Fue v. Martin Biter
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20614
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Steven Fue was convicted in California and the California Supreme Court denied review on direct appeal; his conviction became final May 19, 2009, starting AEDPA’s one‑year federal habeas clock.
- Fue mailed a state habeas petition to the California Supreme Court on November 15, 2009, which tolled AEDPA’s clock while the state petition was pending.
- The California Supreme Court actually denied Fue’s state habeas on May 20, 2010, but Fue alleges he never received notice of that denial.
- After 14 months with no decision, Fue wrote the court (Jan. 31, 2011); the clerk replied (Feb. 3, 2011) saying no record of a pending petition, which Fue read as uncertainty rather than as a denial.
- Fue filed a federal habeas petition on March 7, 2011. The State moved to dismiss as untimely; the district court granted dismissal. The Ninth Circuit, en banc, reversed and remanded for factual development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fue) | Defendant's Argument (Biter/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of notice of state-court denial can justify equitable tolling of AEDPA limitations | Lack of notice of the California Supreme Court’s denial prevented timely filing and thus is an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling | Denial of petition occurred May 20, 2010; delay until March 2011 was untimely regardless of notice | Lack of notice, if proven, can be an extraordinary circumstance that entitles petitioner to equitable tolling |
| Whether Fue acted with reasonable diligence by waiting 14 months before contacting the court | Fourteen months was reasonable given the California Supreme Court has no fixed habeas decision deadline and routinely notifies parties when it rules | Waiting 14 months shows lack of diligence and failure to pursue rights | Fourteen months was not per se unreasonable; a fact-specific inquiry supports Fue’s diligence here |
| Whether the clerk’s Feb. 3, 2011 letter gave Fue notice the petition was denied and triggered the limitations clock | The letter indicated no record of a pending petition and could reasonably be read as meaning the court never received the filing, not as a denial | The letter put Fue on notice of the denial, so he had to act sooner | The clerk’s letter did not clearly notify Fue of denial; on the record accepted at motion-to-dismiss stage, it did not constitute notice |
| Remedy and next step | If Fue’s factual allegations are true, his federal petition should be deemed timely and considered on the merits | The petition is time-barred and should remain dismissed | Case reversed and remanded for factual development; if facts support Fue’s claim of no notice, district court must deem petition timely and reach the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (AEDPA tolling principles and exhaustion interplay)
- Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009) (lack of knowledge of state-court denial can be extraordinary circumstance)
- Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001) (reasonable waiting periods to contact state courts may still show diligence)
- Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011) (diligence is fact-specific and measured by reasonable efforts)
- Miller v. Collins, 305 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2002) (pro se petitioner’s nine‑month wait was reasonable)
- Hardy v. Quarterman, 577 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2009) (eleven‑month delay reasonable where court owed duty to notify)
- Knight v. Schofield, 292 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 2002) (sixteen‑month wait was reasonable when petitioner expected notification)
- Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2013) (urges leniency in applying impossibility standard post‑Holland)
- Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002) (addresses evidentiary burdens for tolling claims)
- Gibbs v. Legrand, 767 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2014) (rejects strict literal interpretation of “impossibility” requirement)